Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: muawiyah
Neither did the Darwinians [address duplications and reordering]

If you're saying evos don't consider duplications and reordering kinds of mutation then you're very wrong as is evident here.

96 posted on 08/07/2006 8:07:23 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]


To: edsheppa
I am very aware that some (but not all) evolutionists have sought to REDEFINE "mutation" to include duplications and reordering.

If magic beams from the mother ship were found to be a "cause" you'd find evolutionists claiming that this, too, was mere "mutation".

Right up to the time the lady got the Nobel for her discovery of "jumping genes" the word "mutation" meant something very specific ~ namely, the transformation of an existing gene with specific coding into a different gene.

I'm sticking to the old definition. That way words will continue to have meanings that facilitate communication.

98 posted on 08/07/2006 8:12:35 PM PDT by muawiyah (-/sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson